The hadith (Allah was, and there was nothing before Him) and the narration (Allah was, and there was nothing other than Him); Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Hakim agreed with him, preferring the first narration

The questioner : All right, a matter related to and branching from this, the issue of succession, O Shaykh, the hadith of 'Imran ibn al-Husayn, which is well known

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The hadith came, as you know, in al-Bukhari and . Ibn Taymiyyah has, meaning, a preference... and Ibn Hajar likewise... the preference of both of them, or I mean, I mention...?

The Shaykh : I think I commented on Ibn Taymiyyah's narration that we did not find for it... do you mention Ibn Taymiyyah's words?

The questioner : Ibn Taymiyyah says the narration is more preferred, citing as evidence that when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked—both narrations are in al-Bukhari—but he says: is more preferred than or than ; because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when asked, or said in the interpretation: to the end of the verse, said: . So he said: The saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): prefers the narration: . And al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says: The narration is the most preferred; because—meaning—it includes . When we say , meaning, he said we reconcile between the two narrations. When we say , meaning falls into it. But if we prefer , it is as if we have nullified . So he reconciled...

The Shaykh : This is what Ibn Taymiyyah observes. This is Ibn Taymiyyah's observation when he prefers the narration

The questioner : He prefers the narration as a possibility over the other hadith.

The Shaykh : It is established that there is something with Him

The questioner : Yes, he holds that it is established that there is something with Him

The Shaykh : This is the great observation, yes

The questioner : All right, which of the two preferences, meaning? The first preference or Ibn Hajar's preference?

The Shaykh : I am with the Hafiz in this, and I think I mentioned something of this in the commentary on al-'Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah

The questioner : I mentioned it in al-'Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, yes, and in the first created thing, I clarified, meaning, in the refutation, but I mean from a hadith perspective

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : When a narration comes from one path, its source is one and the incident is one, but it has two different words, meaning, and

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : So do we reconcile here or prefer?

The Shaykh : This is the principle... reconciliation, not preference. Preference is when one is unable to reconcile.

The questioner : But reconciliation happens when there are two narrations, meaning

The Shaykh : authentic ones

The questioner : Yes, but this is not two narrations. This is one incident and one narrator, 'Imran ibn al-Husayn. The incident is one, meaning, its source is one.

The Shaykh : Does it become two narrations in one hadith?

The questioner : Its source is one, meaning the speaker is one. But if, for example, it is one incident but two different Companions, one said—meaning—a word and the other... when the source is one and the narrator is one. Do we also say reconciliation here? Or preference?

The Shaykh : This is the principle. The principle is that the source is one, and the narrations differ, so reconciliation must happen. But when the source is different, meaning two Companions narrated a hadith, one narrates it with a wording and the other narrates it with another wording, then here, if preference is also possible, then so be it; otherwise, it becomes as we said regarding this... the most authentic is taken. So preference is a general principle; it is not looked at whether the source is unified or different. So I do not know why you are going around this specific point?

The questioner : Perhaps it is for us to have—meaning—always a divider in the issue of reconciliation...

The Shaykh : Absolute reconciliation, meaning, for example—... we bring an example—if the incident is unified and the narrators are different, reconciliation is necessary. But if the incident is different, then each incident is handled on its own. In the Qur'an, for example, in some rulings—perhaps you can help me remember the ruling of the verse— in another place

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : If this wording is unified in one ruling, the addition that came, which is , is taken. But if the ruling differs, the absolute is applied in the verse of freeing a slave, and the restricted is taken in . There, the absolute slave does not suffice; because it was restricted and described as a believer. And here it was made absolute, so the absoluteness is taken. This is when the source differs. Yes, but when the incident is one, it does not matter at that time whether the source is unified or different, why? ...

The questioner : If you say, O Shaykh, do you follow the Hafiz's saying?

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : Reconciliation between the two narrations is better?

The Shaykh : And this is what I told you.

The questioner : All right, this chain and the same issue

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : Al-Khalab ibn Aslam narrated to us—this is from Ibn Jarir in his Tafsir—he says: Al-Khalab ibn al-Aslam narrated to us, he said: Al-Nadr ibn al-Humayr informed us, he said: Al-Mas'udi informed us—and note that all of this is through al-A'mash in al-Bukhari's narration—he said: Al-Mas'udi informed us, he said: Jama' ibn Shaddad informed us from Safwan ibn Mahriz

The Shaykh : from

The questioner : from Safwan ibn Mahriz

The Shaykh : Safwan ibn Mahriz, yes

The questioner : So in this narration—meaning—. All of that is through al-A'mash, through al-A'mash from Jama' from Safwan, except this one from al-Mas'udi. And before al-Mas'udi, al-Nadr ibn Shumayl narrated it from him, and from al-Nadr, al-Khalab ibn al-Aslam narrated it. What is your opinion of it?

The Shaykh : Who is... [speaking on the phone] Peace be upon you... May Allah keep you alive... May Allah bless you and accept from us and from you righteous deeds... I hope you are well... You know, travel is a piece of torment, and we ask Allah, Mighty and Majestic, to reward us for the troubles and difficulties we encounter in His path, Mighty and Majestic... How is your health?

The Shaykh : Yes, our question about this chain, what is it ultimately?

The questioner : We said that those narrations are from al-A'mash and in them are and , meaning, he. So when we returned to the chain, we found that this chain, in what we have seen, is the only one through al-Mas'udi, but in it is . So look, is it possible to prefer the narration with him?

The Shaykh : This chain, without doubt, is cited as evidence but not relied upon as proof; because al-Mas'udi became confused in his memory

The questioner : Yes, we confirmed the confusion, that he became confused in Baghdad, and the narrations of the Basrans from him are authentic, and before him were Basrans: al-Nadr and al-Khalab, and his confusion was two years before he died, and he was in Baghdad... the Baghdadi, and also the narrations of the Basrans from him are authentic.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : And al-Nadr was from the Basrans, as was al-Khalab

The Shaykh : Meaning, this narration was narrated from him in a state of confusion

The questioner : No, they said that he became confused two years before he died

The Shaykh : ... the narrator, in what state did he narrate from him?

The questioner : They said the narrations of the Basrans from him are authentic.

The Shaykh : Is this one a Basran?

The questioner : And this one is a Basran.

The Shaykh : Al-Nadr ibn Shumayl... I do not recall this detail that you are graciously providing. If that is the case

The questioner : If that is the case?

The Shaykh : Then the chain is authentic.

The questioner : And if it is authentic? Do we then say this narration prefers because there its source is al-A'mash, and here its source is through al-Mas'udi?

The Shaykh : All right, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, when he preferred that, based on what?

The questioner : He preferred based on and , and that—meaning—the two words themselves, that falls into . If we say with him, we have not nullified the word "before Him." But if we say , we have nullified the meaning of . On this meaning.

The Shaykh : All right, this supports the preference of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar.

The questioner: Yes ... .

The Shaykh : Meaning, this increases the strength of the Hafiz's preference

The questioner : Yes, this

The Shaykh : I am saying if what you mentioned is that this was narrated from him before the confusion, then the chain is authentic

The questioner : Consequently, the Hafiz's preference is preferred

The Shaykh : It supports

The questioner : It supports

The Shaykh : Yes, who did you say, who said that this and others like it were narrated from him before the confusion? Who is it?

The questioner : No, they did not say before the confusion, they said that the narrators of knowledge

The Shaykh : ... .

The questioner : Yes, I say it is necessary for them, because they said the narrations of the Basrans from him are authentic

The Shaykh : Who said this? It is not important, meaning, remember them all

The questioner : ... but perhaps, meaning, al-Dhahab

The Shaykh : In al-Tahdhib, is this mentioned?

The questioner : By al-Qadiri, who mentioned it

The Shaykh : Al-Qadiri!

The questioner : I think al-Qadiri mentioned it

The Shaykh : In any case, this...

The questioner : ... the Hafiz likewise.

The Shaykh : In al-Tahdhib

The questioner : In *al-Tahdhib*, I think... it is Qadri.

The Shaykh : And this is Ibn Jarir.

The questioner : This was narrated by Ibn Jarir in the exegesis of the seventh verse of Surat Hud

The Shaykh : Okay... the chain here ends with Safwan. What comes after Safwan?

The questioner : From Imran.

The Shaykh : From Imran?

The questioner : From Imran, all of it is from Imran, yes.